Italy is once again discussing the fight against gender violence: the casus belli, the Bongiorno amendment to the so-called "rape bill." ---- Last November 25, the Chamber of Deputies approved a bipartisan legislative amendment to introduce the definition of "free and actual consent" for the crime of sexual violence. In this way, the law aligned itself with both the Istanbul Convention and the most recent case law.
Great fanfare, a major scandal within the League and beyond.The change was quickly described in terms as apocalyptic as it was grotesque, to the point of absurdly suggesting that a declaration before a notary would be necessary in the future in order to "intercourse without risks." Opposing this amendment becomes, in the words of its detractors, both a question of freedom ("nothing can be said/done anymore") and a matter of protecting men, threatened-once again-by armies of resentful women and the plague of false reports, often driven by "morning-after regret." It's clear that those who argue in these terms ignore, or pretend to ignore, the mechanisms of violence, but we'll return to this later.
The amendment presented by Giulia Bongiorno, a lawyer and senator currently a member of the Northern League, has now reached the Senate. This amendment, if it were to become law, would represent a step backwards both from the previous proposal and from current practices.
In this context, we cannot help but notice the opposition's role in paving the way for the current situation: modifying existing legislation, given the current parliamentary composition, is, to say the least, disarmingly naive. In my area, we say "xe più mona che stronxx" ("to be more foolish than...").
Focusing on the content of the amendment, it would involve replacing the concept of "free and actual consent" with that of "evaluation of contrary will."
This issue apparently pertains exclusively to the legal and criminal sphere, but its implications transcend that specific field.
It is necessary to recognize that the balance of power between legislation, case law, and the "real country" is complex and multidirectional.
The author has no faith in the ability of the law-or case law-to determine the material in absolute terms; however, it would be truly naive to deny that the concrete nature of our daily lives is heavily influenced by these elements. Furthermore, every legislative provision is also a political and social statement.
With these connections in mind, let's attempt an analysis starting from the introduction of the concept of "consent."
The issue is seemingly extraordinarily simple: it would involve recognizing, at a legislative level, the need for active will on the part of the people involved in a sexual relationship.
Easy, right? Not at all. Consent speaks the language of desire, of encounter, of listening, of limits. It establishes a concept both banal and powerful: another's body is not something available "until proven otherwise."
Abstractly, this principle concerns every body equally. But, once again, bodies become embodied power relations; in reality, this legislative process impacts primarily female and feminized bodies.
I believe it is necessary to carefully consider the "obviousness" of this fact.
It is striking how, from a strictly heterosexual perspective, availability and accessibility concern only women's bodies. It is evident how the agency role is perceived as the exclusive purview of the male, in a relational-and power-asymmetry so obvious as to become invisible.
It's important to highlight this invisibility, to avoid the risk of portraying, even unintentionally, as "natural" what is, in effect, a historical and social fact.
The current debate on consent fully questions the dominant patriarchal culture, and the gendered lens through which this concept is-rightly-interpreted demonstrates how patriarchy is still far from being a legacy of the past.
It's especially interesting to note how this gendered lens is applied not only by "bad feminists," but primarily by men themselves. Both the misogynistic, hostile, and anti-feminist ones, and-albeit with markedly different approaches-the allies. No one seems to feel the need to point out that the establishment of consent as the basis of sexual relations would also concern and "protect" men. The boundaries of the male body are never the subject of debate: it's unnecessary, it's a given.
There is no absolute reason why legislation that enshrines the concept of consent should particularly protect women or particularly restrict men. Yet, this is how it is-correctly-interpreted, even and especially by its detractors. The king couldn't be more naked.
Because it is here that it becomes clear how sexual violence is largely gender-based violence. How much it's about power, not sex.
Power is always at the root of rape, whether it's taking advantage of a dominant position, reaffirming it when perceived as threatened, or asserting it as a form of revenge. Sometimes women's bodies are used to speak indirectly to other men; this is the case, for example, in war rapes.
Power is at the root of even the most "banal" and everyday rapes: in the family, in intimate and loving relationships. The social and structural asymmetry between bodies whose role is to demand and bodies whose role is to be available. The most pervasive-and therefore the most invisible-of abuses of power.
Patriarchy flows powerfully through us, transcending ideological barriers. Calvino was wrong when, in 1975, he vilified those responsible for the Circeo massacre, attributing their actions exclusively to wealth or political affiliation. Those who still endorse his theses today are also wrong. And the debate surrounding the "Epstein files" seems to be rapidly spiraling toward the same abyss.
I was already a teenager on February 15, 1996, when rape stopped being a crime against morality and became a crime against the person. A few years later, it would become a crime against me. Unimportantly, I never reported it. Was it the right choice? Probably, but it's a choice I could never truly make, because it took me more than ten years to recognize what had happened to me. At that point, every assessment was purely academic. Despite my political, militant, and feminist background, it took a long time to name my experience. I needed to recognize myself in the different yet similar experience of another woman. Only then did I understand that paralyzing myself, biting a pillow hard to keep from screaming, crying, and refusing to participate in any way were abundantly valid signs of non-consent. Although, it's true, I never said "no," I didn't push, I didn't scratch, I didn't try to hit. I only hoped he would hurry up and that "my duty" would be over quickly. This personal testimony is intended to be a concrete example of how the dynamics of violence and its recognition can sometimes be difficult to understand, even for those who suffer them. But even today, as I mentioned at the beginning, the narrative of "she was there and then regretted/changed her mind" is widespread. Life is more complex. It is always more complex than a slogan, a law, or a sensational statement on social media. A multitude of factors come into play, often difficult to understand for those who are not at risk of finding themselves in this position-namely, most men.
Gender-based violence is often, as mentioned, also gender-based violence.
Violence from a society that teaches women to be available until proven guilty; violence that teaches them that this availability must be unconditional for partners, husbands, loved ones, and lovers; violence that internalizes guilt, because "I didn't rebel enough"; violence of-and in-the understanding, acceptance, and justification of a man who "couldn't understand." Violence that measures a woman's worth by the male yardstick and gaze. Violence from a man who isn't educated-and often has no interest in being educated-in listening, empathizing, and ultimately, the violence of "just breathing."
The point isn't to apportion blame; that's not helpful. The point is to recognize the problematic nature of this violent asymmetry that codifies and structures desire.
The same violence that made the feminists in the streets say, "Who cares if they talk about consent, they're unfuckable anyway."
For me, a feminist, a survivor, and unfuckable, the approval of this amendment will change little. The social and political significance of this approval, and the fight to prevent it, will, however, mean something. Or a lot; it will depend on us how we write it.
In memory of Franca Viola, who rebelled against her rapist and her shotgun wedding. And also of her father, who was her ally.
Asia
https://umanitanova.org/a-proposito-di-consenso-tutte-quello-che-avremmo-dovuto-sapere-e-che-oggi-osiamo-chiedere/
_________________________________________
Link: (en) Italy, FAI, Umanita Nova #7-26 - Speaking of consent. Everything we should have known... and what we dare ask today. (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten